Paul Friedman: 2026 candidate for 9th Congressional District

Bio

Office sought: 9th Congressional District

City: Chicago

Age: 56

Occupation: Software Writer

Previous offices held:

Q&A

What is your top issue and how do you propose to address it?

My top issue is to fix a broken Congress. I plan to do this by presenting two proposals — 1) end gerrymandering and 2) set term limits for House Representatives and Senators.

For gerrymandering, the undemocratic process of setting congressional districts to favor one political party over another, several suggestions have been made from think tanks and universities. To be clear, a one size fits all approach will not work for each state, but by setting achievable, measurable metrics, we can ensure that our Congressional Districts are as representative and fair among all fifty United States.

For term limits, we need to set some numbers. Organizations, like U.S. Term Limits, have already laid the groundwork. My original proposal differs only in the number of terms, but the idea is the same. Representative in Congress is a two-year job for reasons best expressed in Federalist 52 — frequent elections “are unquestionably the only policy” to ensure that the government has “an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people.” I intend to change the foundational structure of the House and Senate, so that Congress once again acts in the interest of the people.

Do you support the unilateral foreign policy course President Trump has taken with such actions as the bombing of Iran, assaults on Venezuelan ships and the seizure of the Venezuelan president?

No. Only Congress has Article 1 powers “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Congress needs to reassert those powers by defining the definition of “war.” This administration keeps stressing that these acts of war are simply “kinetic actions.” If we allow the executive branch name an “act of war” as a “kinetic strike” we have essentially neutered the Constitution.

The executive branch has expanded its powers in recent years on foreign policy, economic tariffs, executive orders and more. Are you satisfied with the direction these activities are moving? If so, why? If not, what needs to be done differently?

I apologize but I must disagree with the premise of this question. The executive branch has been expanding and testing it's powers ever since the 2nd or 3rd resident of the White House. Granted, after the attacks on September 11th, 2001, the powers given to the executive branch have accelerated to an alarming degree.

The Republican Party has traditionally been the party of small government, where state's rights are at least on an equal level with the federal if not arguably superior. Historically, power has been granted to the federal government to address abuses by the States (e.g. education access, voting rights). This administration has reversed the dynamic between federal and states rights to a degree which the states need to reign in executive power. Similar to my previous response, regarding definitions, Congress needs to establish a definition of “emergency.” Too many of these tariffs and executive orders have been made as responses to declared emergencies. Powers given to the executive branch can and should be taken back by the legislative branch.

What should U.S. border policy be? If elected, what would you do to make it happen?

For more than a decade Thomas Friedman (no relation) has used the metaphor of a “high wall with a big gate” as the best way to address our border even as the issues change. Our border policy should match this metaphor.

I love it when a right leaning organization like the Cato Institute agrees with a self described “pro-business, pro-globalization Democrat” like Friedman. When people with differing perspectives agree with specific proposals to address a significant problem I know that there is a path forward to make progress on the issue.

I fall on the side where we should build the “big gate” first as argued by the Cato Institute. That is, we need to expand legal immigration which significantly cuts down the number of illegal immigrants. As for a “high wall,” I would like to emphasize the metaphor rather than a concrete wall; we need to control immigration via border controls and repatriation measures.

Finally, let me quote Friedman from his 2021 article, our border policy “requires a tough-minded balance between hardheartedness and compassion.”

What should be the government’s role in assuring health care for Americans? What should be done regarding the ACA to better perform this function?

Healthcare is my most pressing legislative concern.

I think that we can all agree that the healthcare marketplace differs from any other market and with the increased consolidation of healthcare companies reducing competition it is necessary for the government to intervene as it already has for Medicare and Medicaid. Healthcare in this country is a thorny issue that has not been properly addressed since the New Deal.

I have tongue-in-cheek proposal called “Medicare Advantage for All” — basically a call for a public option to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In actuality it's just the first step to making all Americans eligible for Medicare. The first person in the House of Representatives to introduce a bill for national health insurance was in 1970 by Jacob Javits, a Republican; healthcare is not a partisan issue. All political parties have proposed some sort of national health insurance for nearly a century, it's time to confront the problem head on. Somehow we can, as a nation, manage to come together to say everyone can get basic health coverage at a reasonable cost and the government can intervene as needed.

What is your vision for a solution to conflicts involving Israel and the Palestinians? What should the United States be doing to advance this position?

It is manifestly clear that the two-state solution is the only path forward. Having exhausted all other options, we must place our efforts into the one remaining viable solution — two states, Israel and Palestine.

The United States should lead a coalition (the Board of Peace perhaps?) to support the formation of a Palestinian state. Negotiations around borders and under whose authority I will leave to more experienced people but I will strongly support interim areas under international control until a time the multi-step process is far enough along to be self sustaining.

The United States and allies should press all parties to come to the table and stay awhile — to have good, constructive talks and move toward the only workable, enduring option.

As for funding, I am fully in favor of continuing to provide weapons to Israel. I am not in favor of purchasing those said weapons. Israel is a strong ally capable of negotiating the prices to acquire military goods from the US. I encourage that they keep doing so because a strong Israeli presence in the region is good for the interests of the US.